NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

[NickOtani]

Greetings.

I have been posting recently on a messageboard called "Talk Philosophy" and presenting my views and debating them. However, the debate there is not of high caliber because, although the board is called "Talk Philosophy," it is occupied mostly by people who really know very little about philosophy and merely want to spout opinions and chat casually. I came along and tried to talk philosophy but obviously didn't fit in. One of the posters to that board recommended that I post my views on this board and see how I fare with the "big dogs." If the posters on this board don't mind, I'd like to try this.

I won't present my entire philosophy in one post. It is presented in a number of writings on my website, and I continue to develop it and restate it on my board and other places. However, I do have a brief summary of it, a sort of Cliff's Notes version of it, which I can use to get the ball rolling, and I will present it here and provide links to more detailed information.

First, before I just throw it out here and get a strong reaction that comes whenever someone mentions Ayn Rand, I will say that my philosophy is a mixture of her philosophy and Sartre's existentialism. Please do not automatically condemn me as a Rand freak just for associating myself with her. I am not an Objectivist. I am a Neo-Objectivist, and I am specifically my own kind of Neo-Objectivist. So, I call my philosophy NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism, and I'd like to present it here for discussion and debate:

Basically, Objectivism is a lot like Realism in that it is assumed that reality exists independent of the perceiver. It is discovered rather than created, and it exists pretty much as it is perceived, but reason is also a tool which we use to integrate facts of our perception. According to Rand, A is A, and the law of causation is a corollary. She doesn't recognize all the problems with perception that more rigorous philosophers talk about, and she doesn't see that an immovable, objective reality conflicts with the idea of freedom for human beings. If we all have common essences and reality is not something we can control, then we are slaves to it or like pieces of clay shaped and molded by external forces beyond our control. Behaviorists and other determinists love to make this point, that freedom is only an illusion. Existentialism, however, sees reality as more of a human creation, at least we participate in making ourselves and our reality. It's not just external to us and beyond our control, forcing us to be what we are. We have freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility. We can't just blame things that happen to us on an external reality beyond our control. We can't just be victims. Since we create ourselves and our reality, we also bring about that which happens to us. In psychology, if the behaviorist is the objectivist (Of course Rand, herself, rejected Skinner as she rejected anyone who didn't agree entirely with her.), then the humanist would be the existentialist or subjectivist.

Now, my philosophy is Neo-Objectivism. I try to combine the best of Objectivism with the best of Existentialism to keep the best of two worlds while off-setting the weaknesses of each. Too much objectivism clashes with freedom, but too much subjectivism ignores facts of survival which are pretty much objective. I believe there is an essence of humanness such that humans long ago and humans in other parts of the world are substantially the same as I. There is some natural law which is universal, so that we can have an objective morality based on human survival. However, we also have freedom within those objective parameters. We couldn't have morality if we didn't have this freedom, but unbounded freedom also eliminates the need for prescription. So, there are certain facts about reality and human existence which are objective, universal, as true for one person as for another, but we also have freedom within those objective parameters to forge our own paths, to create ourselves and reality.

Rand would disapprove of me big time. She has said that Existentialism is a philosophy for barefoot savages. She doesn't like anyone tampering with her system. It's all or nothing. Well, I respect her originality and individualism, but I can't be original and my own individual if I am just her blind follower. I still respect many aspects of her philosophy, but I think my version is better.

Writings on my website and messageboard go into further detail of my philosophy, comparing and contrasting it with others and continuing to explain and defend it.

Here is a link to my website: http://www.geocities.com/nickotani/index.html

Here is a link to my board: http://pub25.ezboard.com/fnickotanisneoobjectivismfrm1


bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

Now, my philosophy is Neo-Objectivism. I try to combine the best of Objectivism with the best of Existentialism to keep the best of two worlds while off-setting the weaknesses of each. Too much objectivism clashes with freedom, but too much subjectivism ignores facts of survival which are pretty much objective.

If Objectivism fails when put to the test - what you call "too much" - then it must be rejected. The only true test of a philosophy is when it is extended fully. Similarly for existentialism.

It is true that there can be absolutely no freedom for us in any way, since everything is caused. But we can be free of certain restrictions only. For example, we can be free from emotional attachment - if we are caused to be. We can be free of being something that we are not caused to be.

That's all there is to it.

[NickOtani]

If Objectivism fails when put to the test - what you call "too much" - then it must be rejected. The only true test of a philosophy is when it is extended fully. Similarly for existentialism.

Philosophies are often derived from other philosophies. Plato's Idealism, for example, is a combination of the philosophies of Heraclites and Parmenides, both of whom had very different views. He did not reject them. He kept elements of each and combined them in a way to form his own philosophy, a theory of the forms, and he explained in the Allegory of the Cave. Likewise, Kant combined what he saw to be salvageable from empiricism and rationalism. He didn't just reject one or the other or both. He combined them to make his own philosophy. Hegel came up with a method for doing this which was used by Marx. It was a dialectic, a thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach. It was rejected by the unsystematic philosophers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre and others, but it is a recognized approach to forming new philosophies. Another way new philosophies are formed is through evolution. They change slowly until, at some point, they become new philosophies.

My philosophy rejects both Objectivism and Existentialism in their pure forms, but it affirms what works in each. Now, it is a new philosophy which can be extended and tested on its own.

It is true that there can be absolutely no freedom for us in any way, since everything is caused. But we can be free of certain restrictions only. For example, we can be free from emotional attachment - if we are caused to be. We can be free of being something that we are not caused to be.

That's all there is to it.

This looks like you adopt a mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism. It doesn't explain what the first cause is. If things are determined, there must either be a determiner or infinite regress, if there is order in nature. Aristotle posited the prime mover as a first cause, an uncaused causer. But there seems to be only one of these in his world view. The existentialist model, if it can be called a model, allows for all humans, the things-for-themselves, to be prime movers. They are the subjects in the subject/object dichotomy. Their natures are incomplete and not fixed, as are the natures of non-human and non-living things, the things-in-themselves. So, humans are free to participate in creating their own natures. It is existence before essence. In NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism, this freedom is within certain fixed parameters.

That's all there is to it.

bis bald,

Nick

[williamashley]

Your are entitled to your opinion but is it yours?

Wrooof Wraf GreWRoaf WRaef
'nuff said
here is a summary of my philosophy.. look deeply at the symbol following:

.



Keep looking until you can abstract no more about my philosophy, and you still wont know what the hell I mean, but you will have discovered atleast something you never knew before.


So how long have you been working on your website and board?
my site is
http://here.no-ip.info

but the site is almost never up. I also have a blog at http://www.vidman.ca/members/ashley

and a very neglected site at
http://www.angelfire.com/retro2/w_ashle ... mepage.htm

It has gotten a back burner to my self hosted very slow non dedicated server.

Are you a goth?




NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism - does this have anything to do with anarchism?


Either we are the seat of monotheism, or we are all avatars to a greater sense, ultimately if we communicate there is a common ground for us to be housed in a union of monotheistics.

True we are society; however, there is the understanding of enligthenment or denile. Are the denires the perpetrators? If we are the lords of domain, then do we not rule those things that denie their own divinity? Surely proactivity to any object, or seeing each object as a concious avatar of the wholeness of 'g-d'. Is an apple to be as concious as a childe who does not communicate in your language to tell you it is US, and responsible, a lord. Or are we to say communication is by default of us expressing our divinity as our state and no preresiquette to our divinity exists - and us being submissive to the whole of society. Surely in the first case we open ourselves up to confusion from the opposite effect, that is if communication is based on anything but the wholeness of interpretation, rather then a cultural preresequete.


How can we know the facts of survival if we ourselves have no died? Are we to base our requirement on the perfection of our physical body? Is that the drive to our very purpose in existence, then why do varying cultures have different expressions of perfection, different models to desire.

Obviously looking at a historical model we can see the development or evolution of human culture to understand heritage for understanding why different models came into being; however, once again like language are we to lord a portion or be the lord of all as an equal state, on par to that of an angel.

I think that finding acceptance in what you do, having that bond of assosiation is where we get our sense of freedom, when we are so close the the experience we do not have moments inbetween to remind us of diversion from our intent.



You seem to have had some 'unique' experiences. You must have a pretty good pention though, for 20 years of services, or does the civi post not carry the same pention or do I not know what I'm talking about,

hasta infinito,

[Blair]

You are both idiots.

[williamashley]

prince three people posted.. which ones are the idiots? or do I open the oppourtnity for a third?

[NickOtani]

You seem to have had some 'unique' experiences. You must have a pretty good pention though, for 20 years of services, or does the civi post not carry the same pention or do I not know what I'm talking about,

Thanks for checking out my board.

No, I don't get a pension for what I did in Europe. I'm living now on what I can get as a substitute teacher. That's all.

bis bald,

Nick

[Jamesh]

Dunno what NickOtani's philosophy actually means - it seems irrational, but to me he is just using philosophy as an ego trip - a way to show how smart he is, gratification from recognition of his ideas.

Cut out the references to other philosophers and just fucking state what you believe in and perhaps you'll get more attention.

[Kevin Solway]

My philosophy rejects both Objectivism and Existentialism in their pure forms, but it affirms what works in each. Now, it is a new philosophy which can be extended and tested on its own.

If you can state clearly and simply what it is, we can evealuate it. But if it includes a jumble of references to other obscure, confused, and worthless ideas, I won't have time for it.

It is true that there can be absolutely no freedom for us in any way, since everything is caused. But we can be free of certain restrictions only. For example, we can be free from emotional attachment - if we are caused to be. We can be free of being something that we are not caused to be.

That's all there is to it.

This looks like you adopt a mechanistic model which runs on cause and effect and results in determinism. It doesn't explain what the first cause is.

There cannot be a "first cause", since all things are caused. Unless, of course, you draw a line in the sand at some point and specify "This shall be known, for practical purposes, as the first cause." Somebody else might of course draw their line in the sand somewhere else.

If things are determined, there must either be a determiner or infinite regress, if there is order in nature.

There must be infinite regress, for the reason I mentioned.

So, humans are free to participate in creating thier own natures.

Only if we are caused to. And exactly how we participate is entirely determined by causes.

[NickOtani]

Only if we are caused to. And exactly how we participate is entirely determined by causes.

Simply insisting that something is so does not make it so. You have to deal with my explanation of the existential model which allows for prime movers. Why is your view more plausible than mine? Which view has fewer unexplained assumptions.

bis bald,

Nick

[NickOtani]

If you can state clearly and simply what it is, we can evealuate it. But if it includes a jumble of references to other obscure, confused, and worthless ideas, I won't have time for it.

If my references are obscure for you, then don't bother talking to me. I came here to find people who recognize my references and don't need the basic education in philosophy.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

Only if we are caused to. And exactly how we participate is entirely determined by causes.

Simply insisting that something is so does not make it so. You have to deal with my explanation of the existential model which allows for prime movers. Why is your view more plausible than mine? Which view has fewer unexplained assumptions.

Your assumption is that there is a "first cause" - that is, something that is uncaused. That is the biggest problem with your philosophy as you have presented it, since it is a totally unfounded assumption. It is actually impossible for your assumption to be right.

I am sure you can work out for yourself the reasons why there can't be anything that is uncaused, so I don't really want to spell them out.

I came here to find people who recognize my references and don't need the basic education in philosophy.

In my view academic philosophy isn't philosophy at all - it's just meaningless words, or garble. So I don't believe there's much point in referring to any "ideas" within academic philosophy, since it's just rubbish referring to other rubbish - which goes around in circles and remains what it is.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Hi Nick. Some items I'd like to comment on.

So, I call my philosophy NickOtani's Neo-Objectivism, and I'd like to present it here for discussion and debate

Is there any wise goal served by giving it a name like that? One has to study the details anyway before knowing really what it's supposed to stand for. Why not just Nick Otani's philosophy?

Basically, Objectivism is a lot like Realism in that it is assumed that reality exists independent of the perceiver. It is discovered rather than created, and it exists pretty much as it is perceived

To which degree does your 'neo-objectivism' agree with such independent reality? Do you think perception through our senses is saying much about this reality? And is that a consensus perception or an individual one? For example, I see a totally different reality than my neighbour even when we might use the same language and can manage to communicate for some practical purposes, mostly to keep the social structure going.

Existentialism, however, sees reality as more of a human creation, at least we participate in making ourselves and our reality

Often it's just the perspective that is being changed for at least the wiser existentialists. This to ensure people do not end up being passive and irresponsible, believing some outside reality or authority will take care of events. It's not meant to deny that the whole of reality appears to create all there is, every moment of our perception.

What do you think of Eastern philosophy like Buddhism? I saw on your website in the section about Spinoza the following sentence

We are not merely a small cog in some giant machine we call Substance or God. It starts with us first and then goes out to whatever is out there which we illuminate.

Could you describe in a few sentences what we are then? A larger cog? Mystery? And when we are gone does the illumination stop?

And in another section you write

When we meet someone in the street, all the fancy furnishings of systematic philosophies are of little value. We must deal with life.

Any philosophy that does not deal with life into its most intimate details is not worth much and shouldn't even be called philosophy. Any system of thought that does not change heart and mind (life as we know it) is only another layer of deception in the realm of truth; window dressing.

[NickOtani]

Is there any wise goal served by giving it a name like that? One has to study the details anyway before knowing really what it's supposed to stand for. Why not just Nick Otani's philosophy?

NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism is a bit more descriptive than Nick Otani's philosophy. It honors one of the philosophies from which it is derived, and it indicates a specific spin on that philosophy. There are other forms of Neo-Objectivism out there. Putting my name in front of my version identifies it as my particular version of a recognizable philosophy.

To which degree does your 'neo-objectivism' agree with such independent reality? Do you think perception through our senses is saying much about this reality? And is that a consensus perception or an individual one? For example, I see a totally different reality than my neighbour even when we might use the same language and can manage to communicate for some practical purposes, mostly to keep the social structure going.

I have written about the problems with perception in an article called "Perception, Logic, and Language." Here is the link:
http://www.geocities.com/nickotani/nick2.html

What do you think of Eastern philosophy like Buddhism?

I have a thread on my messageboard devoted to Buddhism and my philosophy. Here is the link:
http://p081.ezboard.com/fnickotanisneoo ... =876.topic

bis bald,

Nick

[Diebert van Rhijn]

NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism is a bit more descriptive than Nick Otani's philosophy. It honors one of the philosophies from which it is derived, and it indicates a specific spin on that philosophy.

Objectivism is a category mostly in used by academic philosophers or people studying such. Why not broaden your audience a bit? Thinkers in general, and especially the more dangerous and bloody ones, will not care for such terms at all. The reason I say this is because you wrote things like "all the fancy furnishings of systematic philosophies are of little value. We must deal with life". Why then dress your thoughts up with systematic terms and references in such obvious manner?

Some comments on the material you linked to.

it must always be true that A is A and not not-A. However, the rationalist can only assert this. He cannot prove that general truths are true. (...) If there were no problems with logic, then the idea of freedom would be somewhat threatened.

Could you further explain what you mean with 'problems with logic'. Is there a problem with for example A=A somewhere? Some uncertainty possible without at the same time still applying A=A?

I have a thread on my messageboard devoted to Buddhism and my philosophy. Here is the link:
http://p081.ezboard.com/fnickotanisneoo ... =876.topic

You suggest there that Buddhism might be an escape route away from this world, withdrawing from life. I'm not sure from where you think a Buddhist tries to escape from and where he might escape to. The thread doesn't contain much depth and understanding of 'pure classical Buddhism' to clarify this. Actually it digresses into listing lots of trivia from other religions.

I can’t see a pure, classical Buddhist standing up against oppression and fighting for freedom. He would learn to cope with the discomfort of oppression until it doesn’t hurt him anymore.

What makes you think pure Buddhism would have anything to do with comfort or discomfort? Or what do Buddha's teachings have to do with popular notions of 'freedom'. How do you define freedom and oppression ? Do you believe in a possible 'world peace'?

[NickOtani]

Objectivism is a category mostly in used by academic philosophers or people studying such. Why not broaden your audience a bit? Thinkers in general, and especially the more dangerous and bloody ones, will not care for such terms at all. The reason I say this is because you wrote things like "all the fancy furnishings of systematic philosophies are of little value. We must deal with life". Why then dress your thoughts up with systematic terms and references in such obvious manner?

When I said, "...all the fancy furnishings of systematic philosophies are of little value. We must deal with life," I was describing the perspective of existentialist philosophers, those who rebel against systematic philosophies. My philosophy is a synthesis of a systematic philosophy, Objectivism, and Existentialism, an unsystematic philosophy. Objectivism does mean something to academic philosophers, but it is also the name of a popular philosophy written about by Ayn Rand, someone most academic philosophers would reject as a popularist. I don't mind having a portion of her popularity, or notoriety.

Could you further explain what you mean with 'problems with logic'. Is there a problem with for example A=A somewhere? Some uncertainty possible without at the same time still applying A=A?

Yes, paradoxes defy the law of identity. Goedel uses a mathematical version of the liar's paradox to support his theorem that the consistency of a system cannot be proved by rules formulated in that system. And, Sartre points to several maxims which tend to violate laws of non-contradiction, thus the law of identity, but people still understand what is meant. He says, for example, "there are no absolutes," "we are forced into freedom," "he is what he is not and is not what he is." etc. Logic, itself, points to these weaknesses. Perhaps that's a safeguard which blind faith doesn't have.

You suggest there that Buddhism might be an escape route away from this world, withdrawing from life. I'm not sure from where you think a Buddhist tries to escape from and where he might escape to. The thread doesn't contain much depth and understanding of 'pure classical Buddhism' to clarify this. Actually it digresses into listing lots of trivia from other religions.

This is a criticism of Buddhism held by respected authorities, as well as myself, and I explained how this could be seen. Buddhists try to deal with suffering by reducing craving, and nirvana is a state of nothingness. So, rather than trying to be something, as Sartre would advocate, the Buddhist would withdraw into nothingness. Now, I understand this to some extent. It is not letting the self or ego disrupt authenticity, but it can also be criticized as withdrawing from challenges in life. A martial artist may see it as bending like grass in the wind to pop back up rather than resisting like the oak that breaks.

What makes you think pure Buddhism would have anything to do with comfort or discomfort? Or what do Buddha's teachings have to do with popular notions of 'freedom'. How do you define freedom and oppression ? Do you believe in a possible 'world peace'?

My ideas of political freedom and oppression may be very different from a Buddhist's notions. To me, freedom is being allowed to do whatever one wants to promote and protect a flourishing survival within the context of allowing others that same right. Oppression is the violation of that right by some. I do not agree entirely with Buddhists or Existentialists.

bis bald,

Nick

[Leyla Shen]

Hello, Nick,

I am having a problem understanding your argument, here:

Even if we could base logic on underlying, objective facts of reality, there would still arise several problems. For example, Epimenides' paradox (The statement "I am lying." seems both true and false.), and Russel's construction (The statement immediately following this statement is false - The statement immediately preceding this statement is true.) are only a few of the brain teasers that still make logicians feel insecure.

You say here that even if logic could be based on objective facts of reality (like a table, a chair, a pig) there would still arise several problems. But to demonstrate this (?) you use an entirely abstract notion (brainteasers) which isn't even remotely connected to any form of objective reality.

In other words, you do not use an objective fact of reality to prove logical problems with using objective facts of reality as a basis for logic.

[NickOtani]

You say here that even if logic could be based on objective facts of reality (like a table, a chair, a pig) there would still arise several problems. But to demonstrate this (?) you use an entirely abstract notion (brainteasers) which isn't even remotely connected to any form of objective reality.

In other words, you do not use an objective fact of reality to prove logical problems with using objective facts of reality as a basis for logic.

You could have a point here. I may have been sloppy in my phrasings. Let me try to make them more clear:

In the two paragraphs prior to the one you question, I stipulate that the true rationalist would maintain that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction would be based on underlying facts of reality. That a tree is a tree and not a tree and non-tree at the same time.

I should have included another paragraph explaining that some people might say all logic is based on that law of identity, and, if the law of identity is based on underlying facts of reality, then all logic is based on underlying facts of reality. And, underlying facts of reality are objective facts of reality.

The liar's paradox, however, does conflict with the law of identity when truth table analysis is applied. If it is true, it is false; and if it is false, it is true.

So, yes, these paradoxes are abstractions, but are they abstracted from an objective reality? This raises the issue of whether or not logic is an abstract tool which helps us make sense of an objective reality, or is it synthetic-apriori, something that is both empirical and rational?

Anyway, there are problems with the larger theoretical picture of logic, as demonstrated logically by Goedel.

You are right that I may be mixing categories from the concrete, the objective, to the abstract, symbolic systems.

Thanks for making me look at this.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

Yes, paradoxes defy the law of identity.

Not possible.

Give an example.

If a liar says "I always lie", and he is telling the truth, is that a paradox? If he is telling the truth, then he is not a liar, and if he is lying, then he sometimes tells the truth, and he is a liar in this instance.

Liar = liar

Not a liar = not a liar

The law of identity is not being defied at any point.

Goedel uses a mathematical version of the liar's paradox to support his theorum that the consistency of a system cannot be proved by rules formulated in that system.

That is the fault of Goedel's system. He is dealing with isolated systems, and not universals. Isolated systems are in fact illusory.

And, Sartre points to several maxims which tend to violate laws of non-contradiction, thus the law of identity, but people still understand what is meant. He says, for example, "there are no absolutes,"

I don't know what people mean when they say such things. It sounds like gobbledegook to me. Does he mean that there are no absolutes except for those countless statements which he personally specifies to be absolute? Probably.

nirvana is a state of nothingness.

Nirvana is not a state of nothingness. This is a misunderstanding on the part of Western academics.

[williamashley]

Yes, paradoxes defy the law of identity.

your A = your A

MY A |= your A

OUR A = OUR A

therefor A may not be the same A

nothing is identical. everything has it's own unique condition and qualities.

We create modalities of comparison and interaction to create effect to cause, however, we tend to create smaller events within a larger one.

Generalization is what seems to be the way of many, laws from theory, and only force or will to resistance as a way of disagreement simple disbeleif.

However, what we have experienced is not gaurentied to be what we experienced of that moment in the future.

For instance us driving may be seen as us getting from point A to point B.. but if we learn about global warming or the pollution caused by the auto industry then us driving may not have the same simple meaning.

Of course when you are using math or the idea of pure logics the context of the meaning of something can be understood as being identical for the sake of it, but the actuality is that nothing has singular meaning when used as an interactor or comparitive. Thus everything which has meaning derives from our sense of beleif and faith.

The same is for interpretation of falicies. A paradox is what is both true and false, not mearly an imposibility.

The meaning of words as rhetoric can be interpreted in many ways. The fact that most 'literate' individuals are taught a 'mechanical' object physicalist based modality to understanding language seeing words for what they do rather than what they mean is a faux of modern society.

There are no absolute opposites in any such sense behind the rheotric of the actual occurance. Time and memory and difference create change in meaning. When you apply scales and constants of course you have reason to beleive sameness but even when you look at the whole of science 5 pounds in one point of space does not = 5 pounds in another point of space because there are an infinite number of differential forces acting upon those points. Nothing is 'the same' but we can generalized sameness and laws for control and creation.

Culture of course create systems, and out of that derives some sense of requirement. On the basis actions are not truely required but the world around you and the personaities you hold may state what will occur based upon your actions.

We can determine A for what it means but A is not static nothing is, but we have an affinity and empathy towards other personalities as everything is an ongoing object, that we have the choice to subject. Wether this is concious or unconcious is problamatic because if we are not the utensil to which controls then does that mean we are being controled?

However, if we have total control are we alive? As how can we be living as a singularity?

Anyway this came out of the A=A argument. nothing is the same but the function of the assumed context creates direction in rhetoric but each moment creates a new set of meanings.

[NickOtani]

I appreciate your feedback, ksolway, but I think some of your observations are more vulnerable than mine. First, you added conditions to the liar's paradox that allow you to make it look solved. When it isn't tampered with, it isn't that easily dispensed with. Second, Goedel's theorem stands up. It is not so easily dismissed. And, finally, nirvana is an end to samsara, the never-ending process of life and cycle of reincarnation in which Hindu religions and Buddhism believe. It is a peaceful oblivion, a nothingness.

bis bald,

Nick

[Kevin Solway]

nirvana is an end to samsara

Fine, but do you know what samsara is? I don't think so.

You give the standard Western academic definition: "The never-ending process of life and cycle of reincarnation in which Hindu religions and Buddhism believe."

In fact, samsara is only the world of delusion. It is nothing more than the experience of the deluded person. It is the "world" of the deluded person.

Buddhas die just like everyone else. What they have escaped is delusion. Just the opposite to what you say, samsara/delusion is in fact the world of nothingness, since, in it, nothing is real. Only in nirvana, the enlightened state, does reality exist. And thus, only here is there truly "something".

[NickOtani]

Fine, but do you know what samsara is? I don't think so.

I think of it as a form of the state of flux idea of Heraclites or the idea of everything being in a process of becoming, as the existentialists describe. Whitehead also talks about process as opposed to the static existence about which other philosophers talk. In Hesse's book, Siddhartha, the constant flux idea is symbolized by the flowing river, everything gets combined and continues to move on.

Reincarnation is another aspect of this constant process, and it is not considered desirable by Hindus and Buddhists. It is just more suffering, which is life. Nirvana is an escape from that.

Buddhas die just like everyone else. What they have escaped is delusion. Just the opposite to what you say, samsara/delusion is in fact the world of nothingness, since, in it, nothing is real. Only in nirvana, the enlightened state, does reality exist. And thus, only here is there truly "something".

I agree that Buddhas believe this enlightened state is more real, more authentic, than the unenlightened state. They do think "self" is a delusion and gets in the way of awareness, as the ripples from a pebble tossed in a pond disrupt the calm surface which reflects its surroundings. I agree that Buddhas think enlightenment comes when all the trappings of materialism and egoism are stripped away and essence is revealed. It is like someone whittling a boat from a piece of wood. He or she whittles away all that does not look like a boat until the boat inside the piece of wood is revealed.

bis bald,

Nick

[N0X23]

Will wrote

nothing is identical. everything has it's own unique condition and qualities.

Is that truth identical for everything? ;)



Nick O tani wrote:

And, finally, nirvana is an end to samsara,

Samsara has never arisen or began, therefore it can have no ending. Nirvana is not dependent or conditioned, it can not be the direct result of something that doesn’t exist.

the never-ending process of life and cycle of reincarnation in which Hindu religions and Buddhism believe.

With regards to the Buddhist, they believe that ALL things are impermanent, therefore the cycle of Life and Death are not never ending. Nor do they believe in reincarnation. For there is nothing to transmigrate from one existence to another. They do believe in the theory of re-birth, which they purport to be happening with every thought and breath. But even then, re-birth is conditioned and impermanent.

It is a peaceful oblivion, a nothingness.

Nirvana is not nothingness/oblivion, nothingness is a state dependent on being devoid of somethingness.. If this were the case, it would be wholly dependent on something, to be nothing and would therefore be conditioned dependent and therefore unsatisfactory, which would be the description of Samsara and NOT Nirvana. Nor is it peaceful. For there is no one there to experience the temporary and dependent state of non-chaoticness and or “Peace”

[Kevin Solway]

Fine, but do you know what samsara is? I don't think so.

I think of it as a form of the state of flux idea of Heraclitus or the idea of everything being in a process of becoming, as the existentialists describe.

Are you talking about samsara or nirvana?

Since Buddhas die, even in nirvana, things change.

Reincarnation is another aspect of this constant process, and it is not considered desirable by Hindus and Buddhists. It is just more suffering, which is life. Nirvana is an escape from that.

Buddhas are alive, until they die. Nirvana is not an escape from cause and effect.